TB5-08083

TB5-08083

The RAD found credibility determinative; the new evidence was not admitted and existing corroboration for the alleged 2014 forced abortion and prior forced sterilization was insufficient or unreliable; country evidence about Guangdong is mixed and does not establish a real chance of forcible sterilization or coerced abortion such that risk is more than a mere possibility; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB5-08083
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Younger Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Younger Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Forced Sterilization, Coerced Abortion, Country Conditions, Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Forced Sterilization Coerced Abortion Country Conditions Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Younger Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Younger Male Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonably inferred
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to properly assess risk of future forced sterilization or coerced abortion in Guangdong, China
  3. 3 Whether the RPD ignored relevant country evidence regarding family planning enforcement and remedial measures

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found credibility determinative; the new evidence was not admitted and existing corroboration for the alleged 2014 forced abortion and prior forced sterilization was insufficient or unreliable; country evidence about Guangdong is mixed and does not establish a real chance of forcible sterilization or coerced abortion such that risk is more than a mere possibility; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Determination of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a).